I Wear Pants;1100008 wrote:Okay, take away the debt part and what Quaker said is still false, we have seen a massive increase in defense spending.

Manhattan Buckeye;1099936 wrote:I'm saying it won't get worse. Obama has been a complete disaster. We were ready to hang W in '04 when unemployment in a jobless recovery was at 6.4....why are we giving Obama a pass after 3 years when we're stuck in the 8-9 range?

Is this an affirmative action presidency? Does he get a head start? Why do you support him? The nation is in major suckitude. Housing sucks. Jobs market sucks. Debt (both the nation's and individual's) sucks. What the heck has he done? Why has he earned your vote? Because he went to Harvard Law School (and did nothing afterwards)?

I'm voting for Romney, but I don't care, I just want Obama out. Congrats, we elected a Black POTUS, perhaps the next Black President will be qualified. Obama isn't.

stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I support him for one simple reason (courtesy of Ronald Reagan): I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better and my health insurance provider cannot deny me coverage for a pre-existing condition.

Con_Alma;1100493 wrote:Makes sense to me. A lot of people vote that way.

I rakr a different approach. Me being better off or not better never be the result of a President. I look at national issues and ideology to make my decision.

stlouiedipalma;1100512 wrote:I would guess that pretty high percentage of middle-class voters vote with their pocketbooks....

stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better

stlouiedipalma;1100512 wrote:I should be voting for the Republican candidate, as I would expect that person to implement policies which would favor the upper and upper-middle classes.

jhay78;1100358 wrote:These lines were added to our founding document long before the 1950's:



I get what you're saying, just don't pretend like "separation of church and state" and the First Amendment are the same thing.

gut;1100699 wrote:Yeah, but you're not choosing between Bush and Obama. 2008 is a really lousy hurdle to aim for, basically being the peak of the financial crisis. And if Obama gets re-elected, your taxes ain't remaining lower and the market will probably cough up trillion or more. Businesses do not like Obama - everyone is in survival mode until November. Maybe eventually they would get over it, but the end of the year will not be good for the economy and the markets if Obama gets 4 more years.

I Wear Pants;1100770 wrote:Doesn't name a creator, most of the founders were deists.

But again, imagine if we tried to remove the creator parts from the constitution, people would flip ****. Why is it not okay to be upset about adding things like that to the pledge and to money?

Footwedge;1100907 wrote:I'm sure Wall Street will pony up plenty for Obama and his campaign.

stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I support him for one simple reason (courtesy of Ronald Reagan): I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better and my health insurance provider cannot deny me coverage for a pre-existing condition.

the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.

Manhattan Buckeye;1101049 wrote: There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.

BGFalcons82;1100963 wrote:Well...wouldn't YOU pony up plenty for the person who gives you billions so you could stay in business without risk? Who doesn't appreciate their Suga Daddy?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

Manhattan Buckeye;1101049 wrote:I take it you don't own a house. If every American votes based on your criteria not only will BO lose in a landslide, he would have been impeached already. My wife and I have slightly higher incomes than we did in '08, but not enough to keep up with inflation, and the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.

There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.

Footwedge;1100915 wrote:Not to be picky....isn't the phrase "under God" pretty much all encompassing...kind of how deists view a Supreme Being?

In other words, I could see your point a lot clearer...if the pledge said "under Jesus".

I agree with you that the forefathers en masse denounced any form of theocracy in our government. I think Santorum needs to be very careful in how he chooses his words things when he goes forward.

I Wear Pants;1101296 wrote:Housing crisis was started way before Obama took office if I remember correctly.

Manhattan Buckeye;1101396 wrote:True, but recovery summer was in '10, wasn't that Smilin' Joe's claim? How is that recovery working for us? If BO is re-elected this year it is practically guaranteed we'll be in '16 looking at a fiscal situation of at least US$20T debt, if we get the same poor results from the debt spending the last 3 years the U.S. will be in a very difficult situation (to state it moderately). We've already seen social unrest from the libertarian/right wing with the Tea Party movement, and from the progressive/left wing with the OWS protests. I think the fringe on each side will grow more angry when it is obvious that retirement is a pipe dream for the Boomers/Gen X, and a livable job is a pipe dream for young people with tens of thousands of dollars in education debt. Yet, Washington DC continues to grow and grow. I have no idea why anyone would vote for Obama again.

Cleveland Buck;1101552 wrote:Obama has been a disaster, but he isn't any more responsible for housing prices than any of the other corrupt assholes running the government. If you are worried about the price (in dollars) of your home you should really thank Barack and Dubya and Helicopter Ben. If we were going to price homes based on supply and demand the price has a lot father to fall.

Of course, the dollars your home is priced in will buy you a lot less now than if the nominal price was allowed to collapse. You would be much better off, but many people sure wouldn't understand that.

I Wear Pants;1101567 wrote:This is true, we have what 20 million vacant houses in the US?

I Wear Pants;1101567 wrote:This is true, we have what 20 million vacant houses in the US?

Cleveland Buck;1101577 wrote:When interest rates are 1% it looks really profitable to build a bunch of houses, but even the mighty central planners can't fill them all.

It's like when the Soviets would force people to make concrete and tanks and missiles when their people were starving to death. Maybe the government shouldn't decide what gets produced in the economy.